The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[mikesw]

Your flavor of trinitarianism is called Logos theology. It's very niche and relies on a verse or two for its existence. Not every trinitarian follows that, especially the smarter and well-studied ones like Meyers, who happens to be one of my favorite trinitarian theologians since he often affirms that Jesus is not God in almost every way, without ever explicitly saying so.

following scripture is very niche. Jesus said the path is narrow. I follow what scriptures share when showing Jesus is God.

Nor do i comprehend in what fashion you agree with the testimony of Meyer for the Triune God. You try to take some writing of his in the incorrect fashion and apply it to some deviant unitarian concept. That is violating basic scholarly principles of having to show where he goes wrong in defending the Trinity, especially in trying to apply his text, without any clear basis, for a unitarian belief.

 

[civic]

You don't really try hard. Do you have quotes from his analysis to support your rendition of his views?

And it seems very ignorant to say trinitarians could verge on modalism. It seems like you were going to your friends or sources to see if you could redeem your original posting of Meyer's commentary. Even if spouting a binitarian argument, he still disqualifies the unitarian view. Thanks for another argument against unitarianism though.

And the idea of Jesus simply emerging from revelation seems totally a mischaracterization. Meyer only says that there were aspects of scripture that showed something like the Wisdom of Prov 8 working in creation but then other passages show a more conscious partner alongside God in creation. The hyperliteralist however tends to flatten scripture and remove progress of deeper insight into the recognition of the preexisting One who became incarnate as Christ. There should have been enough in the quotes I shared for you to challenge Meyer on those key points.

We're looking forward for the quotes from Meyer or from scholars to support your rendition shared here. You started off so badly it will probably take multiple posts to get back to square one.

some people only can see what they want to see and been indoctrinated with as we see with the uni's. this shows how some are just unteachable and will not accept biblical correction.

 

[Peterlag]

That has been proven incorrect. The things you believe are accurate according to your incorrect interpretation of Scripture, but with proper understanding taking into account ALL of Scripture, you are WAY OFF.

Just a couple of things that I see about B.G. that leap out at me:
1. He allowed himself to be referred to as "reverend". While that title is not listed amongst Jesus' prohibited titles and appellations, it fits within the spirit of the prohibited titles, and so should NEVER be used or allowed by a true Christ follower.

2. Within the "statement of faith" of his "christian" training centre, proclamation #2 is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being/entity. This is completely contradicted by Scripture (John 14:26, 15:26).

He was a false teacher, regardless of his accolades and notoriety.

I don't care what a man calls himself. Old Leonard had a better take on the holy spirit than most so-called clergy knowing it was the gift of God and the difference between the Holy Spirit who is God.

 

[Runningman]

following scripture is very niche. Jesus said the path is narrow. I follow what scriptures share when showing Jesus is God.

Nor do i comprehend in what fashion you agree with the testimony of Meyer for the Triune God. You try to take some writing of his in the incorrect fashion and apply it to some deviant unitarian concept. That is violating basic scholarly principles of having to show where he goes wrong in defending the Trinity, especially in trying to apply his text, without any clear basis, for a unitarian belief.

You might actually have a point if this was not your M.O. for every reply. You have never disagreed with even one fact I have showed you, which is statistically unlikely to happen. Since you deny everything then of course you couldn't be trusted with an honest opinion. You're just contrarian and it's the only tool in your box it seems. You always reroute everything back to John 1:1. No one in the Bible every talked about what John 1:1 says in your translation when describing or explaining God. As I said, you have a very niche and eisegetical interpretation of Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

You might actually have a point if this was not your M.O. for every reply. You have never disagreed with even one fact I have showed you, which is statistically unlikely to happen. Since you deny everything then of course you couldn't be trusted with an honest opinion. You're just contrarian and it's the only tool in your box it seems. You always reroute everything back to John 1:1. No one in the Bible every talked about what John 1:1 says in your translation when describing or explaining God. As I said, you have a very niche and eisegetical interpretation of Scripture.

haha. you forget that you have not shown any facts. you just distort things like Meyer's comments.

You have not explained where Meyer went wrong in applying the discussion describing the Triune God.

If you had a real argument, people would have followed your beliefs and mindset already.

 

[Doug Brents]

I don't care what a man calls himself.

Then you don't care what God says, because He says that it matters greatly what a man calls himself.

Old Leonard had a better take on the holy spirit than most so-called clergy knowing it was the gift of God and the difference between the Holy Spirit who is God.

Thank you for that opinion. It helps greatly to know who you are following, so that I know where to classify your opinions. They belong in the round file.

 

[Runningman]

haha. you forget that you have not shown any facts. you just distort things like Meyer's comments.

You have not explained where Meyer went wrong in applying the discussion describing the Triune God.

If you had a real argument, people would have followed your beliefs and mindset already.

Maybe if you could demonstrate you ever agree with what the truth is then maybe your commentary could be taken seriously. Just for the record, is there anything you agree with about what the Bible explicitly says aside from John 1:1?

 

[mikesw]

Maybe if you could demonstrate you ever agree with what the truth is then maybe your commentary could be taken seriously. Just for the record, is there anything you agree with about what the Bible explicitly says aside from John 1:1?

haha. you are trying to be a comedian now. or worse, you are becoming forgetful.

Anyhow, you have not expressed where you think Meyer strayed from your interpretation of his words to him using his analysis as pointing to the affirmation of the deity of Christ within the Godhead. How come you keep avoiding that? I offer that you were trying to take words out of context to use as a proof text.

 

[Peterlag]

Then you don't care what God says, because He says that it matters greatly what a man calls himself.

Thank you for that opinion. It helps greatly to know who you are following, so that I know where to classify your opinions. They belong in the round file.

Some of the greatest men of God who have gone beyond the thinking of most in the biblical field are considered outside of the reach of religious folks like you and are considered by folks like you to be a loner, an outcast, the filth of the community, or if you will... a heretic.

 

[Peterlag]

What the Trinity folks have as a religion is a concept where it's about them. Not God. They are the ones that matter. Trinitarians put the emphasis on themselves, so they become centered, the subject, and God the object.

They become the doer, the giver, and God becomes the one done for, or the receiver. For justification they believe in human nature, believing they are able by their own effort, by their own works, by their own ethical and moral achievements to please God, and attain righteousness. They then try to seek God, attempting to discover God by their unaided intellect.

I don't think they understand that the emphasis is on Jesus Christ, who is central, the subject, and they are the object because of what God made available to Jesus Christ, which allowed him to have the bond that created the relationship between him and God.

 

[mikesw]

What the Trinity folks have as a religion is a concept where it's about them. Not God. They are the ones that matter. Trinitarians put the emphasis on themselves, so they become centered, the subject, and God the object.

They become the doer, the giver, and God becomes the one done for, or the receiver. For justification they believe in human nature, believing they are able by their own effort, by their own works, by their own ethical and moral achievements to please God, and attain righteousness. They then try to seek God, attempting to discover God by their unaided intellect.

I don't think they understand that the emphasis is on Jesus Christ, who is central, the subject, and they are the object because of what God made available to Jesus Christ, which allowed him to have the bond that created the relationship between him and God.

Really? The unitarian diminishes who Jesus is and instead exalt themselves as if they can be equal to Jesus.

So you call the blood of Jesus to be our way of relying on ourselves to be reconciled with God. That indeed is self-contradictory and not something in anyway comprehensible to what us Christians know about Christ. You are therefore attacking a straw man rather than actual doctrines and teachings of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Some of the greatest men of God who have gone beyond the thinking of most in the biblical field are considered outside of the reach of religious folks like you and are considered by folks like you to be a loner, an outcast, the filth of the community, or if you will... a heretic.

So people like Brents and myself who have learned from scripture and from great men according to conventions recognized from the time of Christ are somehow loners in doctrine? The math or logic of that only works within some esoteric unitarian logic system -- if it can even be tied with logic.

 

[Runningman]

haha. you are trying to be a comedian now. or worse, you are becoming forgetful.

Anyhow, you have not expressed where you think Meyer strayed from your interpretation of his words to him using his analysis as pointing to the affirmation of the deity of Christ within the Godhead. How come you keep avoiding that? I offer that you were trying to take words out of context to use as a proof text.

Let's try to meet you where you are at since everything the Bible says is an interpretation, apparently. Do you believe that your interpretation is infallible?

 

[mikesw]

Let's try to meet you where you are at since everything the Bible says is an interpretation, apparently. Do you believe that your interpretation is infallible?

I'm waiting for you to explain your use of Meyer so we can follow how you find his discussion ultimately being in defense of the Triune God even though you think in the middle of it he is somehow presenting an argument against it.

To your question, indeed I have made failures. There was a time before 2015 where I was thinking that the deity of Christ was incorrect. I came to repair that incorrect belief.
It is funny. I went to a scholarly convention as a newbie and some guy there was going to push a unitarian view. The reality the format of the convention would not give him any significant path to share his private view. Only the prepared papers were scheduled for sessions.

 

[Runningman]

I'm waiting for you to explain your use of Meyer so we can follow how you find his discussion ultimately being in defense of the Triune God even though you think in the middle of it he is somehow presenting an argument against it.

Already did. Like the Bible, you have denied everything it explicitly says in quotes, pivoted, and argued against what was presented. If you have an argument then it is with Meyers, not me. If this is just your play pen to practice twisting what religious literature says, just say so. I find it odd you seem to disagree with absolutely everything people say and the verses they quote around here unless this is just what you do.

To your question, indeed I have made failures. There was a time before 2015 where I was thinking that the deity of Christ was incorrect. I came to repair that incorrect belief.
It is funny. I went to a scholarly convention as a newbie and some guy there was going to push a unitarian view. The reality the format of the convention would not give him any significant path to share his private view. Only the prepared papers were scheduled for sessions.

So I think where we are at is not whether you are right or wrong, but the psychology that makes you tick. Why is your interpretation correct about the trinity even after the Bible contradicts it, but the people who actually say the Father is the one and only true God, just as the Bible says repeatedly, you call it an "interpretation" even when the explicit statements by God, prophets, Jesus, or apostles are quoted, saying "You, the only true God" or "One God and Father of all?"

 

[mikesw]

Already did. Like the Bible, you have denied everything it explicitly says in quotes, pivoted, and argued against what was presented. If you have an argument then it is with Meyers, not me. If this is just your play pen to practice twisting what religious literature says, just say so. I find it odd you seem to disagree with absolutely everything people say and the verses they quote around here unless this is just what you do.

You think you did something while not having typed it in here? You have quoted a christian theologian who admits the Triune God. Where does his logic get mixed up if that is what you are trying to claim? You have the same problem with Meyer that you do with your own beliefs. You cannot overcome the testimony against the unitarian stronghold of belief.

So I think where we are at is not whether you are right or wrong, but the psychology that makes you tick. Why is your interpretation correct about the trinity even after the Bible contradicts it, but the people who actually say the Father is the one and only true God, just as the Bible says repeatedly, you call it an "interpretation" even when the explicit statements by God, prophets, Jesus, or apostles are quoted, saying "You, the only true God" or "One God and Father of all?"

You fail to disprove the scriptures that show the deity of Christ and of his preexistence. Just as Meyer has shown, there is a progressive revelation of who Jesus would be, but you pretend that defends the idea of the Word as some inanimate disassociated aspect from God. I cannot find that defendable in scripture--at least you have not proven your basis for disbelief.

 

[Doug Brents]

Some of the greatest men of God who have gone beyond the thinking of most in the biblical field are considered outside of the reach of religious folks like you and are considered by folks like you to be a loner, an outcast, the filth of the community, or if you will... a heretic.

If what these "great thinkers" say and believe is clearly contradicted by Scripture, then they are nothing more than Satan's tools and false teachers. And what this man teaches is clearly contradictory to Scripture.

While he is right that the Father is a Spirit and the Father is Holy, he is wrong in saying that the Father is "the Holy Spirit". This is clearly seen in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name,". Here you see all three of the persons of God in one verse. The Father will send the Holy Spirit (He won't send Himself) in the name of Jesus (again, Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate).

 

[Peterlag]

If what these "great thinkers" say and believe is clearly contradicted by Scripture, then they are nothing more than Satan's tools and false teachers. And what this man teaches is clearly contradictory to Scripture.

While he is right that the Father is a Spirit and the Father is Holy, he is wrong in saying that the Father is "the Holy Spirit". This is clearly seen in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name,". Here you see all three of the persons of God in one verse. The Father will send the Holy Spirit (He won't send Himself) in the name of Jesus (again, Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate).

You need to take a B.G. Leonard class.

 

[Doug Brents]

You need to take a B.G. Leonard class.

Nope, I will not take a class from someone I already know is a false teacher.

 

[amazing grace]

If what these "great thinkers" say and believe is clearly contradicted by Scripture, then they are nothing more than Satan's tools and false teachers. And what this man teaches is clearly contradictory to Scripture.

While he is right that the Father is a Spirit and the Father is Holy, he is wrong in saying that the Father is "the Holy Spirit". This is clearly seen in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name,". Here you see all three of the persons of God in one verse. The Father will send the Holy Spirit (He won't send Himself) in the name of Jesus (again, Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate).

Nope, I will not take a class from someone I already know is a false teacher.

How bout Acts 5?

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit = Ananias lied to God.

The Father is Spirit and the Spirit is the power of God. God is Holy and God is Spirit therefore God is THE Holy Spirit.
There is also the use of holy spirit as the gift people receive when they repent and are baptized. This gift of holy spirit is the spirit of truth, the helper, the promise of the Father that Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost. NOT A THIRD UNNAMED PERSON OF THE TRIUNE GOD.